Re: ILE Binding Question

I'd call it standard practice to have *PGM objects that are built from a
single module.

Code that's needed in multiple places should be in a service program.
Using "Bind by copy" to include the module in the *PGM means that if you
update the module, you also have to update every program. Whereas if the
module is in a *SRVPGM, you update the module, update the *SRVPGM and every
program using the code starts using the new version "Bind by reference".

Exceptions I've seen/heard about
- security functions that the 3rd party doesn't want publicly callable from
a *SRVPGM
- Open Access %handler() - sometimes simpler to ensure every program using
the handler has it's on copy of that handler

The one failure of many RPG shops is to bind multiple modules into a single
*SRVPGM.

If your *SRVPGM is made of multiple modules, then the procedures in the
modules can be
- public (exported from the *SRVPMG via binder source)
- protected (only usable by modules in the *SRVPMG)
- private (only usable by other procedures in the same module)



Charles

On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 12:00 PM tim.feldmeier <tim.feldmeier@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I have not seen many companies binding modules, but, one strange thing
I've seen....they make a module , and a *PGM the same name for every
program. why?What is the sense of binding only one module?Sent from my
Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
--
This is the RPG programming on IBM i (RPG400-L) mailing list
To post a message email: RPG400-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: https://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/rpg400-l
or email: RPG400-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at https://archive.midrange.com/rpg400-l.

Please contact support@xxxxxxxxxxxx for any subscription related
questions.

Help support midrange.com by shopping at amazon.com with our affiliate
link: https://amazon.midrange.com